Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
Apr 22, 2013 8:00pm PDT
before they read miranda rights. this would have falln in the category you can't use this in court but this is what we needed to know if it was more substantive or is that unclear? >> it's not clear whether he provided this information before or after he was read his miranda rights. i don't know. . i know, this is according to a government source, what he has told them in the preliminary investigations. >> jake tapper, thank you very much. obviously significant information there. new information from jake tapper. i want to bring in our panel live tonight. seth jones associate director of the security defense policy center at the rand corporation. former member of the joint terrorism task force and jeffrey toobin our legal analyst. jake is saying -- this is significant in terms of the information in this. but obviously a crucial question out there which is was it obtained before or after those miranda rights were read? >> the irony here is what he is saying is not particularly helpful to him. what would be helpful to him is if he had a conspiracy he could make the government to make a d
Apr 23, 2013 11:00pm PDT
doing it, and i want to say with a very important caveat, before he was read his miranda rights. >> there's no such thing as a slam dunk in criminal law. but this is as close as you get. you've got video tape putting him at the scene. you have a motive in terms of what he's had to say. plus, you have a guy in a car that admissions were made to. it goes on and on. now, could he beat the death penalty? maybe that's a possibility. what should the defense's strategy be. the shoe bomber obviously now serving life, but did not get the death penalty because of your defense. what can the defense possibly do? >> well, they're going to be focused on mitigation at this point, thinking about the possibility of the death penalty. they're going to be looking into his background. they're going to be having him evaluated, potentially, by, you know, forensic evaluations, by psychologists. they're going to be looking at his state of mind. >> it seems like the defense may try to say he was under the influence of his older brother and be some way to mitigate his defense or say he is brainwashed. is
Apr 22, 2013 4:00pm PDT
his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and they don't need to hide behind enemy combatant? >> i think that is certainly part of it. it does look like an overwhelming body of evidence. more than that, they thought they could get the immediate information they needed by the miranda exception, the public safety exception so they could make sure the public was safe. there accident seem to be an constitution aal basis to treat someone that commits a crime like this on our soil. the supreme court has upheld treating an american, the american taliban hamdi captured in afghanistan as an enemy combatant. but here on our own soil, this is a paradigm case to
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)